Ludwig von Mises on the epistemological foundation for social sciences reconstructed

This paper focuses on Ludwig von Mises’s attempt to establish an epistemological/methodological foundation for the social sciences (praxeology). I reconstruct Mises’s writings by disentangling the distinct realms of ontology and epistemology in his arguments. Although Mises’s line of reasoning is squarely based on the distinction between ontology and epistemology, he nonetheless tends to mix ontological and epistemological viewpoints in his argumentation, thereby clouding the issue involved. I believe this is one reason why the writings of Mises appear to be so difficult and engendered different as well as competing readings amongst Austrian economists. Furthermore, this analysis also allows us to assess whether or not Mises offers a sound theory of knowledge. I conclude that praxeology displays internal tensions and explain the reasons for these tensions.

The pragmatic roots of scientific insight: a culturalist approach to management theory in the view of grand challenges

Grand challenges, as they are currently discussed in management research, refer to societal problems that affect human affairs comprehensively. Tackling grand challenges must therefore be considered first and foremost as an overarching cultural effort. To understand how management theory fits into this effort, the article drafts a new epistemic approach to theory development. The approach is based on the school of Methodical Culturalism in the philosophy of science. It turns the attention to the pragmatic roots of scientific insight in daily life. From the review of extant literature associated with Methodical Culturalism, the article extracts a list of questions to investigate how these pragmatic roots take effect in theory development. Using selected examples, the article gives a brief illustration of the change in perspective that results from the culturalist approach. It argues that management theory can be more closely related to grand challenges when the personal affectedness of scholars as human beings is better taken into account.